Failure to Challenge Uncommunicated Below-Benchmark ACRs Within Reasonable Time Bars Subsequent Claims for Promotion

The applicant joined as a Dental Surgeon in 1985 and received subsequent promotions until reaching Staff Surgeon (Dental) in 1996

He alleged non-payment of conveyance allowances for various periods between 2000 and 2012

In 2009, a DPC bypassed him for promotion to the next grade due to missing ACRs and pending disciplinary proceedings

Following a 2011 Tribunal order in a previous OA, he was granted promotion; however, he was again denied promotion to ‘Consultant SAG’ in 2013 while his juniors were promoted

Although disciplinary proceedings ended in exoneration in 2013, a Review DPC later found him "Unfit" for the SAG grade because his ACRs were below the prescribed benchmark

The applicant challenged the rejection order dated 01.01.2018, contending the ACRs were never communicated to him

1. Whether the applicant has a right to claim promotion from the date his juniors were promoted

2. Whether the denial of promotion on the basis of uncommunicated, below-benchmark ACRs is sustainable in law

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the recovery of outstanding conveyance and telephone allowances

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

While there is no fundamental right to promotion, there is a fundamental right to be considered for promotion

The principle from State of West Bengal vs. Amal Kumar Sathpathy mandates that if an employee becomes aware of adverse or below-benchmark entries (even if initially uncommunicated) and fails to challenge them within a reasonable period, they cannot later seek promotion by ignoring those entries

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s case was indeed considered by a Review DPC, but he was found "Unfit" due to ACRs falling below the benchmark

While the applicant argued the ACRs were not communicated, the Tribunal found that he was definitively informed of these below-benchmark entries via the speaking order dated 01.01.2018

Despite this knowledge, the applicant failed to take any legal steps to challenge those specific ACRs or seek their upgradation

The Tribunal noted that it cannot act as an appellate authority over DPC findings unless there is evidence of mala fides or procedural illegality, which was not demonstrated here

Consequently, the delay and laches in challenging the ACRs after 2018 disentitled the applicant from the relief of promotion

The Tribunal ruled that the failure to challenge the below-benchmark ACRs within a reasonable time after the 2018 notification barred the relief sought. The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit with no order as to costs